|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2012 @ 03:24 PM EDT |
Or p'raps just like Malthus' your scientit's prediction
will take a bit longer to happen.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- When was Malthus? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 11:10 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Friday, September 21 2012 @ 04:53 PM EDT |
Except that someone - here on Groklaw! - seems to be a farmer. And he pointed
out that his recycled seed - adapted for conditions on his farm - always seems
to be far more productive than his neighbours' bought-in seed.
Local adaptation is probably far more effective than commercial bulk seed
however modified.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 21 2012 @ 06:24 PM EDT |
Y'know, I have some doubts about it happening at all. (rolls
eyes) (If people get rich fast enough and start playing with
cell phones instead of reproducing, our environmental
problems will be solved.) However, having the tools
available to increase the efficiency of calorie creation for
rice, eg, is, in my judgement, a good thing.
Much of the debate about nutrition and cancer rather misses
the point of GMO. The advantage of GMO is not providing
healthier food. I believe that GMO crops probably decrease
nutrition and increase allergenic and poison content, on
average. (not proven, but reasonable). The benefit of GMO
is not in providing cheaper food to the developed world. I
suspect that substantial fractions of people would prefer
eating foods that have been consumed for at least 30 years,
even if they cost a bit more. (see Europe) However, there's
a real benefit in having an extra tool available to decrease
the probability of massive famines. Local adaptation may
well trump GMO alone. However, local adaption+GMO is likely
to beat local adaption alone. And, well, while unhealthy
food will kill you within 50 years, no food will kill you
within a few months.
--Erwin
Sure, the human body wasn't designed to eat sugar. Sure,
it'll kill you. (I spent a bit of time listening to a bunch
of nutritionists. They all agreed that carbohydrates are a
problem. Their only problem with a low-carb diet is high
protein consumption. They also felt that fat intake was
probably ok. Apparently, one of the major reasons the AHA
doesn't change their recommendations faster is that: 'Oops,
sorry, yep, low-fat diet's kill people. Yep. We killed xx
million people with bad epidemiology.' would be undignified. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
